[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49393-49394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13952]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-8212-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid
Company, Havre de Grace, MD
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to
the removal of an August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order (Order) from the
Maryland SIP. The Order constituted a Plan for Compliance (PFC) and an
alternative method of assessing compliance at an American Cyanamid
Company (Company) facility located in Havre de Grace, Harford County,
Maryland (the Facility). The Order allowed for certain volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions sources at the Facility to achieve compliance
with emissions limits through averaging (or ``bubbling'') of emissions
over a 24-hour period. Removal of the Order from the SIP will remove
the ``bubbling'' compliance option for these sources at the Facility.
In lieu of ``bubbling,'' the sources must comply with the approved and
more stringent Maryland SIP provisions for the control of VOC
emissions, which do not allow averaging or ``bubbling.'' This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0607 by one of the following methods:
A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E-mail: [email protected].
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0607. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Bigioni, (215) 814-2781, or by e-
mail at [email protected].
[[Page 49394]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2006, the Maryland Department of
the Environment submitted a revision to its SIP entitled ``Removal of
the 1984 American Cyanamid Company Secretarial Order from Maryland's
State Implementation Plan.'' The request was for the removal of a
Secretarial Order (by Consent) currently incorporated into the Maryland
SIP. EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's requested SIP revision
removing the Order from the SIP.
I. Background
EPA published a final rule on May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20269), approving
the Order issued to the Company's adhesive manufacturing facility in
Havre de Grace, Maryland (the Facility), as a revision to the Maryland
SIP. The Order provided the Company with a PFC and an alternative
method of assessing compliance for certain installations located at the
Facility by allowing the averaging or ``bubbling'' of the emissions of
VOC over a 24-hour period. By allowing ``bubbling'' of VOC emissions
the Company could over-control emissions at some units and under
control at other units such that the overall emissions from the sources
collectively would be the same as those that would be achieved
utilizing traditional control strategies at each source. The VOC
sources where ``bubbling'' was allowed at the Facility were components
of the Facility's paper and fabric adhesive coating operation, and
included Towers 2, 3, and 5 and the FM-1000 coater/dryer.
Since EPA's May 16, 1990 approval of the Order as a SIP revision
the Facility has been acquired by Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc.
(Cytec).
II. Summary of SIP Revision
EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. The revision will remove the Order from the Maryland
SIP. Removal of the Order from the SIP will subject the VOC emissions
sources at the Facility that formerly subject to the ``bubbling''
provisions of the Order to the Maryland VOC regulations and limits
codified at Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.19.07. Those
COMAR regulations are part of the Maryland SIP. (65 FR 2334, January
14, 2000). The materials submitted by Maryland in support of the SIP
revision indicate that the Facility currently intends to comply with
the SIP-approved VOC limits by reducing VOC emissions through use of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer, as allowed by COMAR
26.11.19.02B(2)(b)(ii) and the Maryland SIP (68 FR 9012, February 27,
2003). This proposed SIP revision will remove the current ability for
Cytec to comply with VOC emissions limits for the sources subject to
the Order through averaging or ``bubbling'' of VOC emissions. The SIP-
approved limits codified at COMAR 26.11.19.07C do not allow for
compliance through averaging/''bubbling.'' The applicable COMAR
26.11.19.07C limits of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as
applied (minus water), are also more stringent than the emissions limit
of 3.2 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water)
imposed by the Order.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's SIP revision submitted May
27, 2006 to remove the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order issued to
American Cyanamid Company from the SIP. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule to remove the Secretarial Order for American
Cyanamid from the Maryland SIP does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 16, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E6-13952 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P